I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

[dtaylor]

They said the 7D is allowed, but that we'll do so much landscape and architecture and portrait shooting that I'll be desperate for a full frame within the first year and that I should probably save up for one now.

The only lenses relevant to landscape and architecture work which have no equivalents on crop are the Canon T/S lenses. While I consider T/S to be very useful for landscape, probably 99% of good landscape work produced with small format bodies is produced without T/S lenses. Most people simply do not own one. Among good architecture shots the percentage produced with T/S lenses is higher, but you can do quite a bit without one thanks to PS. Lenses like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (optically equivalent to, if not better than, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II) and the Sigma 8-16mm (basically a 13mm FF equivalent) have UWA covered on crop.

Portraits are a non issue. The common argument is that a FF shooter can shoot at f/1.2 and that it's not possible to get that DoF on crop. So what? Nobody actually wants a portrait with a single eyelash in focus and everything else out of focus. At 50mm on crop I'm usually stopping down to f/2 to get sufficient DoF. Fast primes produce stunning portraits on crop. If you asked me to thumb through an old album and pick crop vs. FF portraits, I would have to look up the files and check the EXIF data.

Full frame is required for the 4th quarter (it's a 6 quarter program) because they start some very ultra wide angle stuff.

Wider than 13mm? Hopefully if that's a hard requirement the 5D mkIII will be out by then. I imagine the new sensor will kick both resolution and noise performance up a notch, which will better distinguish it from the 18 MP APS-C sensor. Then you'll have one of the best sports bodies made (7D) and the current top of the line landscape body (5D mkIII).

[dtaylor]

lady - consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 when you decide to purchase an UWA zoom for the 7D. I'm not knocking the 10-22. It is very good, and I wouldn't fault someone for choosing it for the zoom range. But the Tokina is f/2.8 and is sharper in the edges and corners. I love mine.

[dtaylor]

well i guess because FF has better bokeh then APS-C camera for portrait while most professional architectural photographer prefer using large or medium format cameras so putting that to digital perspective means using FF, you'll also have an advantage in wide angle view and less noise...

Bokeh (the quality of the blur of out of focus details) is a function of the lens, not the sensor size. DoF and therefore the amount of blur is related to sensor size, but with crop you will already find yourself stopping down a fast prime to get enough DoF in most portraits.

The reason architecture photographers often use large format is for the tilt and shift controls which are very useful in architecture photography. If you have access to T/S lenses this is one area where FF has a definite advantage over crop because there are no T/S equivalents on crop. You can sort of use the T/S lenses on crop (the built in flash housing can get in the way), but you lose the WA view they afford. If you don't have access to any T/S lenses any way, then the rest of the wide angle world is well covered on crop.

I would love to see Tokina make an 11mm f/4 T/S for crop, but some how I doubt it will happen.

[Edwin Herdman]

Some random thoughts from me:

A lens collection that works fine on APS-C may not translate well to full frame.  Then again, it might.  Wides get wider and telephotos get shorter.

A 35mm film body requirement shouldn't be too steep - I picked up a film body (which I still haven't used) for $20 locally - it was a cheap Rebel T2.  The metering and autofocus seems like it'd be worse than my T1i though:  "7-point high speed, wide area selectable AF with advanced 35- zone metering" on the T2.  The continuous mode shooting, while touted by Canon as "the fastest...in its class" is only 3 fps in One Shot AF mode, and only 2.5 in AI Servo!  Not a sports camera at all, but it should suit your needs otherwise.

I was going to say look into the Elan 7NE but it looks like this has an identical AF system and merely adds eye tracking.  Yet other bodies all seem to have the same 7-point AF, 35-section metering, and 3/2.5 fps constant shooting.

That leaves the EOS-3 and (probably out of the question) the EOS-1V as good choices.  The EOS-3 especially seems available at not completely outrageous prices, like $150-ish.  Unfortunately, it has been out of production since 2007 so all units you're likely to find will be used, and that becomes a crapshoot.  Not sure if Canon services it still.  The EOS-1V is around $1700 new.  On the plus side, if you get either camera but don't keep it, it should keep its value pretty well (though the EOS-3 seems a much safer bet due to the low price; you could probably lose more than the value of that camera by buying and selling a 1V).

The cynic in me thinks about going the Ken Rockwell route and using a digital camera to meter...bonus points if you could focus a lens on a Canon DSLR body, of course I wouldn't guarantee it would work right (same with metering especially if you had a crop camera) even on a tripod.  That would be clumsy in use as well.

[japhoto]

Interesting requirements from the school, since like dtaylor said earlier, the T/S lens usage is the only thing that really requires a full-frame camera.

And on top of that, a 35mm camera isn't the best solution for shooting landscapes or architecture anyway. T/S lenses can never beat a larger format camera with decent movements.

You've got the 7D now already (a fine choice, I have one too), but there would have been a cool solution to your problems. The 1Ds MkII.

Cheaper than the 7D (used of course), full-frame and you would have gotten a 1D-body like you've always wanted. I'm going to add one to my arsenal at some point or a 5D MkII if the prices come down from where they are now.

Just my 0.02$

[Edwin Herdman]

TS lenses don't require a full-frame, though you obviously get a lot more out of the wide ones when you do.  You could buy the 24mm and get more coverage in full frame than you get with the 17mm on a crop body, and the slightly faster aperture, lower price, and lack of a bulbous front element are all bonuses.

Speaking of price, the 35mm format tilt-shift lineup seems to include some possibilities that would be rather expensive to equal on medium or view camera sizes, especially when you get to longer lengths i.e. 90mm.  Well, I suppose the Hartblei 120mm Superrotator Makro can't be used as a good comparison given its price.  The 90mm Canon offering does take a 2x extender though (and seems to work pretty well with it).

[lady]

I'm back after testing it out for a few days. I got my 17-40mm in the mail.

The f/4L is not enough, however I'm not sure if I should sell it and go with the 17-55mm or just grab a 10-22 for wides and something in the middle later on. I've noticed the lens distortion as well. I got the lens for very cheap, though, so I'll be able to sell it for more than I bought it for.

The camera itself is fantastic. I've had issues with shooting in the shade (forest) and high isos. I shot in the grocery store at 3200 iso and I swear it looked like some kid was taking crayons and stabbing it all over (that's how grainy and pixelated it looked at the iso). I'm not sure if it's the lens or the camera or if I'm doing something wrong.

Any suggestions?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kreebby

under the "practice" gallery would be photos I've taken with the 7D.

lady - consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 when you decide to purchase an UWA zoom for the 7D. I'm not knocking the 10-22. It is very good, and I wouldn't fault someone for choosing it for the zoom range. But the Tokina is f/2.8 and is sharper in the edges and corners. I love mine.

Good suggestion--what does it cost?

[unfocused]

In Re: the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. I also own this lens and highly recommend it. Frankly, the zoom range is so narrow that it really doesn't make that much difference with most subjects. But if you want a super-wide lens that is fast, it is great. Street price appears to be around $660 currently.

I took a look at your photostream. My only comment is that you are shooting under some pretty tough conditions in the park/woods (going from direct sunlight to deep shade). Everyone has their own techniques. Personally, if I wanted a bit more saturation, I'd "double process" the shots in Camera Raw by opening them as Smart Objects. Basically, this involves adjusting two or more layers to achieve the exposure you want in a specific area and then applying a mask and using the paintbrush tool to tweak the exposure on the various layers. (It's a Scott Kelby trick and I recommend his books).

Of course, there are a hundred different ways to achieve essentially the same end results in Photoshop and everyone has their own work flows and techniques they like. Personally, I'd go for more saturation by boosting the blacks in Raw and just let some of the shadows go black. But, as I say, everyone has their own preferences.

Main point, though, is that to achieve greater range and saturation under those shooting conditions, you'll need to play with the image in Photoshop. You're not doing anything wrong, you're just playing on the edges of what any camera can achieve.

[awinphoto]

I thought you said you tested the 17-40 and already had the lens in question and found it superior than the 17-55 in "every way"?  F4, for most indoor environments was never claimed to be the best of both worlds... In most indoor environments, F2.8 is ONLY 1 stop more light and may not even be enough.  You can pick up cheap primes of 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, etc (Even those would have incredibly shallow DOF and need a tripod to shoot with a lower F stop to get more DOF)  Low light situations is a constant battle... you can always get a faster lens but faster lenses have smaller DOF and that can hurt shots as well.  Then it's either raise ISO or get more light, hence strobes or flash... those would be more suited for indoors.  That being said, it appears that you are shooting handhold, am I correct?  For those macro shots which tend to lose light as is due to lighting environments, you almost need to use a tripod.  Using a tripod will allow you to knock down the ISO, longer more stable shots, sharper images, etc...  You can also get a ring light that goes around the lens to add more light in those macro settings.   In the forest you can get a neutral density filter, and lengthen the exposure, lower ISO and get a better shot overall.  I dont know if the grocery store will allow a tripod in their store unless you give them a few photos, but that's the route i'd go in.  Also bring a gray card with you to run a quick white balance in commercial buildings... florescent lights are nasty to work with.  In this Ultrawide area of lenses, distortion will be a fact of life, but it will just vary depending on your lens and camera.  The only way to really avoid distortion is TS lenses. 

[awinphoto]

Regarding high ISO, check out http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_JPEG.shtml

This has a nice high ISO comparisons between the 7D, 5D mark II, 50D, Nikon 300Ds...  It is what it is..

[neuroanatomist]

I thought you said you tested the 17-40 and already had the lens in question and found it superior than the 17-55 in "every way"?

Yep...

I already own a 17-40mm. After extensive testing and comparison I found it to do significantly better than the more expensive 17-55.

And before:

in the 17-40 I didn't notice any barrel distortion what-so-ever. ... I'm not sure why someone would see barrel distortion on that lens.

But now:

I've noticed the lens distortion as well.

Ok, enough of wordsmithing.

The f/4L is not enough, however I'm not sure if I should sell it and go with the 17-55mm or just grab a 10-22 for wides and something in the middle later on.

I stand by the statement that the 17-40mm is not an ideal lens for use on a crop body, and that for most uses, the 17-55mm is superior.  But the question is, in what way is the 17-40mm f/4L 'not enough' for you.  Not wide enough?  Not fast enough?  If it's not wide enough, the 10-22mm is a good choice, as is a Tokina 11-16mm.  If it's not fast enough, f/2.8 will likely not be enough of an improvement, and you'll need to start thinking a fast prime like the 50mm f/1.4 that you already have.  If you need fast and wide, that's a problem on a crop body (and while there are solutions on FF, they aren't cheap). 

The other solution is to add light, via flash, monolights, etc.

I've had issues with shooting in the shade (forest) and high isos. I shot in the grocery store at 3200 iso and I swear it looked like some kid was taking crayons and stabbing it all over (that's how grainy and pixelated it looked at the iso). I'm not sure if it's the lens or the camera or if I'm doing something wrong.

Any suggestions?

The lens does not affect ISO noise, except indirectly (i.e. f/4 is narrow, meaning need to boost ISO more often because your lens is slow). 

Personally, I don't like the ISO noise of the 7D, and I really try to keep it at ISO 800 or lower.  But, sometimes you need to go higher.

Suggestions would be 1) Shoot in RAW and 2) get something better than Canon's DPP for RAW conversions.  Personally, I find that DxO Optics Pro does a much better job at NR than DPP or Adobe Camera RAW.  DxO also does a great job of removing the barrel distortion you're now noticing, without sacrificing sharpness.  If you want to stick with Adobe, there are plugins like Noise Ninja and Topaz Denoise that will help, and are also superior to DPP.

[Redreflex]

Suggestions would be 1) Shoot in RAW and 2) get something better than Canon's DPP for RAW conversions.  Personally, I find that DxO Optics Pro does a much better job at NR than DPP or Adobe Camera RAW.  DxO also does a great job of removing the barrel distortion you're now noticing, without sacrificing sharpness.  If you want to stick with Adobe, there are plugins like Noise Ninja and Topaz Denoise that will help, and are also superior to DPP.

Out of curiosity, has anyone demonstrated a like for like comparison of noise reduction between DPP and some of the programmes you mentioned? Sorry a little off topic

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Suggestions would be 1) Shoot in RAW and 2) get something better than Canon's DPP for RAW conversions.  Personally, I find that DxO Optics Pro does a much better job at NR than DPP or Adobe Camera RAW.  DxO also does a great job of removing the barrel distortion you're now noticing, without sacrificing sharpness.  If you want to stick with Adobe, there are plugins like Noise Ninja and Topaz Denoise that will help, and are also superior to DPP.

Out of curiosity, has anyone demonstrated a like for like comparison of noise reduction between DPP and some of the programmes you mentioned? Sorry a little off topic

I haven't seen any.  The thing with noise reduction, is that one of the versiona may be superior on a particular image, while on a different image, something else works better.

Some of the NR software allows you to use layers, so that you can use heavy nr on areas that lack detail and go lighter where you need to retain detail.

Its not simply which is best, but which works better for what you do.  Lightroom 3 really improved their noise reduction, and for general use, its one of the best.  LR2 was not really that good at NR.

You will see lots who prefer one over the other and declare theirs to be the best.  For them, it is.

Here is one reasonably recent comparison, but its over a year old and vastly out of date, I believe it reviews LR2, and not the vastly improved LR3.  NR is a moving target and they are all improving.

http://www.prophotoshow.net/2009/02/26/noise-reduction-shootout-straight-dope-comparisonreview/

[Redreflex]

Suggestions would be 1) Shoot in RAW and 2) get something better than Canon's DPP for RAW conversions.  Personally, I find that DxO Optics Pro does a much better job at NR than DPP or Adobe Camera RAW.  DxO also does a great job of removing the barrel distortion you're now noticing, without sacrificing sharpness.  If you want to stick with Adobe, there are plugins like Noise Ninja and Topaz Denoise that will help, and are also superior to DPP.

Out of curiosity, has anyone demonstrated a like for like comparison of noise reduction between DPP and some of the programmes you mentioned? Sorry a little off topic

I haven't seen any.  The thing with noise reduction, is that one of the versiona may be superior on a particular image, while on a different image, something else works better.

Some of the NR software allows you to use layers, so that you can use heavy nr on areas that lack detail and go lighter where you need to retain detail.

Its not simply which is best, but which works better for what you do.  Lightroom 3 really improved their noise reduction, and for general use, its one of the best.  LR2 was not really that good at NR.

You will see lots who prefer one over the other and declare theirs to be the best.  For them, it is.

Here is one reasonably recent comparison, but its over a year old and vastly out of date, I believe it reviews LR2, and not the vastly improved LR3.  NR is a moving target and they are all improving.

http://www.prophotoshow.net/2009/02/26/noise-reduction-shootout-straight-dope-comparisonreview/

Thank you. Interesting. I do have more questions on post-processing in general... actually... I think I'll start a new thread since I'm about to take this way off topic!

[neuroanatomist]

Out of curiosity, has anyone demonstrated a like for like comparison of noise reduction between DPP and some of the programmes you mentioned? Sorry a little off topic

Not comprehensive by any means, but I previously posted a comparison between DPP and DxO.